7 thoughts on “More Not Fannish Enough”

1. Of course, I was saying all of that tongue-in-cheek since I don’t believe Pat, the original poster, intended for that to be anything like I jokingly put in. That being said, there certainly seems to be more of an effort these days defining what something “is not,” rather than accepting what something might be/including that something in a larger grouping, no?

2. Given that I’m currently reading a book about (amongst other things) identity politics, this sort of thing is at the forefront of my mind right now. It will probably also find its way into the article on the Tiptree that I’m (finally) about to write.

3. Ah, identity politics! There are plenty of people (most of whom benefit in some fashion from the status quo, from what I’ve seen) who dismiss it out of hand, but it certainly makes for a fascinating discussion. What book, if I may ask?

4. The one pictured on the right under “Currently Reading”. It is an application of Postmodernism to gender theory.

5. Might have to read that one sometime soon, since it’s been a while that I’ve read po-mo studies/applications. I’m usually more interested in metanarrative techniques as opposed to gender/sexuality roles, but if it’s any good, I might make an exception in this case.

6. There will be a review (yes, an actual review) later, Larry, but I do have to finish the Tiptree article first.

   Of interest to this conversation is that Wilchins seems to think that identity politics encourages exclusion because the more people you exclude from your group the more you can claim to be a victimized minority.

7. Interesting argument, one that has been made before by many and obviously one that would make some of us reading this think of the various “define SF” arguments that seem to spread like herpes from time to time…

Comments are closed.